What is more scary than Molly Ivins talking politics? Molly Ivins talking economics. Her latest tirade on President Bush's social security proposals leaves logic by the roadside and promotes the politics of fear.

First, Ivins claims that social security will still be solvent by 2052 because it will still pay 81% of benefits. This is proof to her that the system will not be "bankrupt" as President Bush claims. What she doesn't understand is that the "iceberg" metaphor is entirely apt. If nothing is done between now and 2052, benefits will be heading lower for years to come, only to be remedied by massive tax increases which will condemn the system to extinction, exhaust the American taxpayer, and stifle economic growth. Perhaps she would like to see the social security tax double to 25% like it is in Germany. If this were to happen, our economy would be as dead in the water as theirs is today. America's vaunted upward mobility would be crippled. Democrats would complain.

Ivins answer, not surprisingly, is to "tax the rich", turning social security from the social safety net it was designed to be into yet another "punish success" proposal.

Secondly, Ivins compares President Bush's statements on social security to "lies" about WMDs in Iraq. But wait. Maybe she is onto something here. Just like WMDs, every president, both Republican and Democrat, for the last 25 years, has said that we need to do something about social security. Just like presidents from both sides said Saddam used WMDs and had the capability and intent to rebuild them and therefore needed to be removed from power. Dam that bipartisanship!

Thirdly, Ivins is scared to death that Wall Street might benefit from this by setting up private accounts. Managing millions of small accounts would rack up "millions of dollars in fees," she says. But investment companies already manage millions of small IRA and 401k accounts for the public today. There is simply no reason fees need be higher than in these already established and wildly popular Erisa accounts. Moreover, Ivins says that separate accounts "have not worked in other countries." Whether separate accounts have worked in far less accountable economies like Argentina's is not the point. The only question is: have they worked here? The answer: absolutely.

The real fear among liberal Democrats over social security is clear. The more Americans become owners of assets, the more they tend to vote Republican, and the more they move away from the dependency culture advocated by Ivins and those on the left. President Bush is doing the right thing by addressing this now. Remember, by the time the Titanic reversed engines, it was too late to avoid the iceberg and the resulting catastrophe. The Democrats answer must be more than "steady as she goes."

  John Pendleton